Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Reply to topic
Aetixintro
First Post
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 3:30 pm  A Refined View on Abortion - The Sympathic Angle Reply with quote

There are basically two views on abortions, the pro and the con.

Now, let's say there are heavy reasons for choosing either side. If this is the case then maybe abortion should be allowed? I think abortion should be allowed so that all people who need it may have their abortion and so that all who are fortunate to live lives that allow them to reject abortion.

Let's be clear: the ideal for both sides is that no abortions are carried out because nobody really wants an abortion, to kill a fetus.

So my entry is that the view of sympathy to abortion is to allow abortions and at the same time make good use of the contraception-pills or condoms to accommodate both views as ways of life!

Like it? Your view?

(By this text, I don't list the usual arguments pro- and con-.)
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 11: Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:06 pm
Reply
Re: Pro Abortion - New Arguments...

Like this post
[Replying to post 8 by Aetixintro]

Quote:
New arguments for the pro abortion position:
Pro Abortion
- Not a newborn for the cannibal right after birth...


I do not understand this? What does that mean?

Quote:
- Not a newborn for the unfit mother or parents...


Soooo . . . a person is not a person if their parents are unfit? Wow! That hardly seems fair. “Your parents are unfit, soooo sorry to say we gotta kill ya!” Yeah, that make sense.

Quote:
- Not a newborn as some kind of sextoy early in life or later...



Again, I don’t get it. What does this mean? What am I missing? Is English your first language?


Quote:
- Not a newborn to fulfill a pervert hope...


Are we back to if a pedophile gets someone pregnant then the baby developing in the womb should not have a right to life because his father/mother was a pervert? Sorry, again this reasoning is beyond illogical.


Quote:
- Not a newborn for the sadistic sodomy at any point in life...



Sodomy can’t even result in pregnancy. I seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:
- Not a newborn to fulfill parents' wish apart from the newborn itself...



Once a life is created, a life is created. One human being doesn’t get to decide if another human being gets the right to live – again, that’s like Nazi Germany.



Quote:
- Not a late abortion to fulfill stemcell research need... (pro abortion limitation)



Huh? There is nothing wrong with stem cell research. The facts however show that adult stem cell research is just as or even more successful than embryonic stem cell research. So, why do the latter? Why justify the killing of human beings in the name of science? Weird. Unless of course you don’t care about human beings.



Quote:
- Not a newborn to abusive parents...



Why should the baby be killed because his parents are terrible people? Punish the parents – not the baby!

Quote:
- Not a newborn to dire social circumstances, like extreme poverty, hunger, thirst, insanity, war, neighborhood of crime...



I guess let’s just tell poor people that they can’t procreate. Procreation is only for the rich! (in case you aren’t sure, this comment is satire)

Quote:
It's more Christian to fight evil than to follow dogma.



Can you please name the dogma you are referring to?

Quote:
The little reference in the Bible may say "do not rape women", but is rather unreasonably used to defend the pro life position. Naughty?!


Hmmmm . . . you might want to consider how naughty it is to think those who you find inconvenient or who don’t fit your standard of ‘permitted to live’ can just be eliminated at your will. Not everyone thinks those who aren’t “perfect” – those who might have Down Syndrome or a disability should be eradicated. Not everyone thinks if you aren’t ready for a kid right now then you should just be able to kill one. There are NO reasons to justify abortion. None.

Don’t want to take care of a baby? Give the baby up for adoption to loving parents who long for one. Why kill him?


I am continually reminded of just how lame the pro abortion position is.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 12: Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:10 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 9 by William]

Quote:
RightReason: Why punish the child for the sins of his/her parent?

William: In what way is the child actually 'being punished'? In what way have the parents sinned?


The previous comment was referencing the argument that a woman should be able to abort a child conceived in rape. Rape is the sin. Abortion would be the punishment. I assume you can see how silly that is. Why would you punish the baby for the sins of his father?

There are children conceived during rape whose mothers and themselves are so grateful that they were not killed yet given the right to life they deserve!!!!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 13: Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:20 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 10 by Bust Nak]

Quote:
RightReason wrote:


What are the credible reasons for exterminating the unborn?

Lets not beat about the bushes. Most people are okay with medical reasons. The contentious reason is for the convenience of woman involved.


Who is ok with medical reasons? There actually are no medical reasons that necessitate abortion. None. Now if you are referring to the rare instances where the life of the mother might be at stake? Well, of course actions should be taken to save the life of the mother and IF those actions then resulted in the death of the baby well that is very different than actively, purposely killing the baby. Certainly, you can recognize the difference.


Quote:
Quote:
This is what for some reason I think alot of people don't understand. The very same rationalizations/justifications for exterminating Jewish people are used for the killing of the unborn . . .

Same rationalizations/justifications sure, but said rationalizations/justifications don't work equally.

Consider the following example: "It's okay to kill cattle for food" vs "it's okay to kill dogs for food." Same rationalization/justification, different persuasiveness. Whether the rationalization/justification is the same as that used else where is irrelevant.


Except we’re not talking about cattle vs. dogs vs. rats vs. insects. In my example we are talking about human beings vs. human beings. Unless of course, just like the Nazi’s you think Jewish human beings are inferior to German human beings. If you think Jewish people are subhuman/no fully human (which was the exact argument the German’s made) then I guess you would be able to rationalize their extermination.

This is precisely what those on the pro abortion side suggest. A baby in the womb is inferior. He isn’t fully human. My life is more important than his. Therefore, I am justified. That is quite an eerie and familiar justification.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 14: Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:41 am
Reply

Like this post
RightReason wrote:

Who is ok with medical reasons?

Well, law makers stand out as being the most relevant group, I think. Presumably you live somewhere with legalised abortions? They are okay with justifying abortion with medical reasons.

Quote:
There actually are no medical reasons that necessitate abortion. None. Now if you are referring to the rare instances where the life of the mother might be at stake? Well, of course actions should be taken to save the life of the mother and IF those actions then resulted in the death of the baby well that is very different than actively, purposely killing the baby. Certainly, you can recognize the difference.

Both are abortions, granting the differences in allowing to die vs killing. So that's a long winded way of saying "here is one medical reason for abortion, despite my insistence on the contrary."

Here is a question for you, should actions should be taken to save the life of the mother and IF those actions actively, purposely kill the baby, in cases where inaction would lead to the death of both?

And while we are here, are you okay with on-demand abortions that merely resulted in the death of the baby, without actively, purposely killing the baby? I ask because in some cases, it's quite possible to remove the fetus intact.

Quote:
Except we’re not talking about cattle vs. dogs vs. rats vs. insects. In my example we are talking about human beings vs. human beings.

We are? That's debatable. We are talking about human beings vs fetus, surely you accept they are at best different categories of human beings, evens as you insist they are both human beings?

Quote:
Unless of course, just like the Nazi’s you think Jewish human beings are inferior to German human beings. If you think Jewish people are subhuman/no fully human (which was the exact argument the German’s made) then I guess you would be able to rationalize their extermination.

I think fetuses are inferior to human beings, which is why I am able to rationalize their extermination. Care to explain why you would suggest that implies I would also think Jewish are inferior to German?

Quote:
This is precisely what those on the pro abortion side suggest. A baby in the womb is inferior. He isn’t fully human. My life is more important than his. Therefore, I am justified. That is quite an eerie and familiar justification.

Sure, it is also eerily familiar to thinking cattle are inferior. Cattle aren't even pets, dogs are more important than cattle, therefore I am justified in killing cattle for food. That's just as irrelevant as before, note once again whether it is the same justification or not is irrelevant as to whether the justification works, when the subject is different.

You should be arguing the similarities of the subjects, instead of arguing the similarities of the justifications.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 15: Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:25 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to Bust Nak]

Quote:
RightReason wrote:


Who is ok with medical reasons?

Well, law makers stand out as being the most relevant group, I think. Presumably you live somewhere with legalised abortions? They are okay with justifying abortion with medical reasons.


Yes, I was objecting to your comment that most people are ok with abortion for medical reasons. I am a person and I object – along with a large percentage of the pro life community. Like I said, especially because there is no necessity for abortion for medical reasons. Why would you ever need to purposely kill a baby in the womb?


Quote:
Quote:
There actually are no medical reasons that necessitate abortion. None. Now if you are referring to the rare instances where the life of the mother might be at stake? Well, of course actions should be taken to save the life of the mother and IF those actions then resulted in the death of the baby well that is very different than actively, purposely killing the baby. Certainly, you can recognize the difference.

Both are abortions


Sooo if a mother gets sick and the baby in her womb dies, do we call that abortion? If a woman gets in a car accident and the baby in her womb dies, do we say she had an abortion? If a woman looses a baby to miscarriage, do we say she had an abortion? If my 95 year old grandfather dies of heart failure, do we say he was murdered?

Abortion is the deliberate killing of a baby.


Quote:
Here is a question for you, should actions should be taken to save the life of the mother and IF those actions actively, purposely kill the baby, in cases where inaction would lead to the death of both?


Please give a specific example. If a woman needs some surgery or medication in order to save her life, that is NOT an abortion procedure. In fact, no one is purposely or actively or deliberately killing the baby and most likely they are doing everything in their power to prevent the baby from dying. Unfortunately, there are situations where the baby is unable to be saved. Of course there was no direct attempt to take his life.

Quote:
And while we are here, are you okay with on-demand abortions that merely resulted in the death of the baby, without actively, purposely killing the baby? I ask because in some cases, it's quite possible to remove the fetus intact.


I am unfamiliar with this. Are you saying and then the baby is implanted into someone else? If not, then clearly the purpose and action is to deliberately kill and is not even close to the example I gave of a babying dying from the consequences of the life of the mother being saved. Let me ask you, would you consider it murder if parents decided not to feed their 2 year old and as a result the child died? That is murder. No one suggests a woman had an abortion when she gets sick and her baby dies. I know you understand the difference. It is not a matter of semantics like you want to pretend. It is truth that everyone knows.

Quote:
Quote:
Unless of course, just like the Nazi’s you think Jewish human beings are inferior to German human beings. If you think Jewish people are subhuman/no fully human (which was the exact argument the German’s made) then I guess you would be able to rationalize their extermination.

I think fetuses are inferior to human beings, which is why I am able to rationalize their extermination. Care to explain why you would suggest that implies I would also think Jewish are inferior to German?


Why would you think a fetus is inferior to a human being? Do you think a 10 year old has more value than a 2 year old. A 2 year old more value than a 2 month old? Who has more value a 25 year old or a 90 year old? Life is a continuum and we look very different at 9 weeks than we do at 9 years or 9 weeks in utero. Still a human being.

Of course, the Nazi’s used the same arguments you might attempt. Well, the fetus isn’t as strong and viable as all of us already borns. They don’t have the brain power that we do. We are the superior ones.


Quote:
Quote:
This is precisely what those on the pro abortion side suggest. A baby in the womb is inferior. He isn’t fully human. My life is more important than his. Therefore, I am justified. That is quite an eerie and familiar justification.

Sure, it is also eerily familiar to thinking cattle are inferior. Cattle aren't even pets, dogs are more important than cattle, therefore I am justified in killing cattle for food.


I have no problem with humans eating animals. I don’t pick and choose which animals it is ok to eat and which ones it isn’t. I think things like that are based on cultural preferences – not because cattle are inherently inferior to dogs. Dogs make better pets than cattle, which is probably why we have dogs as pets. And cattle make better burgers. They are both still animals – not human beings. Yes, newsflash, we do not treat animals in exactly the same way as human beings.

Quote:
You should be arguing the similarities of the subjects, instead of arguing the similarities of the justifications.


I am. I wish you were. This little video points out the absurdity of the position you support:

https://youtu.be/CNgwsT295G8

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 16: Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:16 am
Reply

Like this post
RightReason wrote:

Yes, I was objecting to your comment that most people are ok with abortion for medical reasons. I am a person and I object – along with a large percentage of the pro life community.

Well you are still a minority, last I check less than 1 in 5 in the US wants a blanket ban on abortion. Presumably that figure is even lower in more secular countries.

Besides, it's not all that clear if you actually falls in the group of objecting to abortion for medical reasons, given what you said about saving a mother's live.

Quote:
Like I said, especially because there is no necessity for abortion for medical reasons. Why would you ever need to purposely kill a baby in the womb?

When the mother's live is in danger?

Quote:
Sooo if a mother gets sick and the baby in her womb dies, do we call that abortion?

No, however we do call the procedure to remove the dead fetus form her womb an abortion.

Quote:
If a woman gets in a car accident and the baby in her womb dies, do we say she had an abortion? If a woman looses a baby to miscarriage, do we say she had an abortion?

Not until she undergoes the procedure to remove the dead fetus form her womb. In many cases of miscarriage, that might not be necessary as the fetus might be expelled naturally.

Quote:
If my 95 year old grandfather dies of heart failure, do we say he was murdered?

Depends on the circumstances that lead up to said heart failure, obviously.

Quote:
Abortion is the deliberate killing of a baby.

Again, you can have an abortion without deliberately killing the baby.

Quote:
Please give a specific example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar Specific enough for ya?

Quote:
If a woman needs some surgery or medication in order to save her life, that is NOT an abortion procedure. In fact, no one is purposely or actively or deliberately killing the baby and most likely they are doing everything in their power to prevent the baby from dying. Unfortunately, there are situations where the baby is unable to be saved. Of course there was no direct attempt to take his life.

Right, but it's not clear why the same surgery or medication suddenly changes from an abortion to a non-abortion when they tried to prevent the baby from dying.

Quote:
I am unfamiliar with this. Are you saying and then the baby is implanted into someone else?

No, I meant left to die outside of the womb.

Quote:
If not, then clearly the purpose and action is to deliberately kill and is not even close to the example I gave of a babying dying from the consequences of the life of the mother being saved.

Well no, the purpose and action is to terminate the pregnancy. The dead baby is just a side effect of having it removed from the womb and not part of the consideration. I would go as far as the suggest "I want to kill the baby" have never been used as a justification for abortions.

Quote:
Let me ask you, would you consider it murder if parents decided not to feed their 2 year old and as a result the child died? That is murder.

Is it? That is usually classed under felony child neglect. Are you using murder as some generic term for slaying that you personally disapprove of?

Quote:
No one suggests a woman had an abortion when she gets sick and her baby dies.

I think you've find that's not true. Surely you've heard of the sob stories of mothers being harassed going to an abortion clinic when the baby is already dead?

Quote:
I know you understand the difference.

Sure there is a difference between on-demand abortions and medically necessary abortions, but both are abortions.

Quote:
It is not a matter of semantics like you want to pretend. It is truth that everyone knows.

You have some nerve brining up semantics when you are the one changing the label placed on a surgery/medication depending on whether you find it morally acceptable or not.

If I want to appeal to semantics, I could have simply pointed out "miscarriage" is known as "spontaneous abortion" when you challenged me on miscarriages above.

Quote:
Why would you think a fetus is inferior to a human being?

Because it is not a person and not deserving of human rights.

Quote:
Do you think a 10 year old has more value than a 2 year old. A 2 year old more value than a 2 month old? Who has more value a 25 year old or a 90 year old?

Depends on the specifics, so let just say they default to the same worth.

Quote:
Life is a continuum and we look very different at 9 weeks than we do at 9 years or 9 weeks in utero. Still a human being.

Right, but worth changes from "meh" to valuable at some point on that continuum.

Quote:
Of course, the Nazi’s used the same arguments you might attempt. Well, the fetus isn’t as strong and viable as all of us already borns. They don’t have the brain power that we do. We are the superior ones.

Right, and once again, "same justification" by itself is irrelevant.

Quote:
I have no problem with humans eating animals. I don’t pick and choose which animals it is ok to eat and which ones it isn’t. I think things like that are based on cultural preferences – not because cattle are inherently inferior to dogs. Dogs make better pets than cattle, which is probably why we have dogs as pets. And cattle make better burgers. They are both still animals – not human beings. Yes, newsflash, we do not treat animals in exactly the same way as human beings.

Well there you go, here you are appeal to the very same rationalizations/justifications for the killing of the unborn: "I have no problem with abortions. I don't pick and choose which fetuses are killed and which aren't. I think things like that are based on a woman's preference - not because one fetus is inherently inferior to another. Wanted fetus makes better pregnancy, which is probably why the ladies carry those to term. And unwanted fetus are better aborted. They are both still fetus - not people. Yes, newsflash, we do not treat fetuses in exactly the same way as people."

Quote:
I am.

Well try harder, all you said on the similarities of the subjects can be summed up as "both are human beings."

Quote:
I wish you were. This little video points out the absurdity of the position you support:

https://youtu.be/CNgwsT295G8

There is no magic involved, just value judgement and perhaps more importantly, legality. What if it's a C-section? Same thing applies.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 17: Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:35 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to Bust Nak]


Quote:
Well you are still a minority, last I check less than 1 in 5 in the US wants a blanket ban on abortion.



Good thing truth is not based on polls or popular opinion. And I argue the reason there might be many who do not want a blanket ban on abortion is because they do not understand reality/science/fact. They have been indoctrinated with the rhetoric that denies the truth of the situation and has successfully caused a great deal of deception. This is unfortunate, but people can be educated.

Improvements in science and technology continue to reveal to us amazing images of the baby in the womb. Kind of hard to deny what we can now see in 3D – unless that is, we don’t look. This is precisely why Planned Parenthood fights ultra sound requirements. They aren’t really about informing the woman. For them, the less the woman knows/sees the better. Fortunately, some of us think this is horrible. We are pro woman. In fact, we fight for both the woman having the baby and the woman in the womb. Sex selected abortions are common. The truth is more girl babies are aborted than boy babies. I guess radical feminists aren’t too distraught over this. Also, more African American babies are aborted than white babies. Where is the outrage? How odd. Planned Parenthood specifically targets poorer areas. They push their mass sterilization agenda on the poor. I guess poor people shouldn’t procreate. This is something their founder, Margaret Sanger actually believed. Disgusting.

So, unless someone wants to argue against science and deny the facts, they may eventually realize abortion is anti woman and racist!


The pro aborts have been quite successful with their dehumanizing attempts and use of rhetoric like “clump of cells”, “a parasite”, “My body. My right”, “Planned Parenthood”, “pro-choice”, etc. Racists and Nazi’s used similar tactics to present their enemy as not fully human. Human beings/entire classes of people were referred to as vermin, cockroaches, parasites, 3/5ths human, ignorant, inferior, etc. Compare that to the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger’s own words on pushing abortion and the pill on those she deemed inferior. Like Hitler, she believed she was helping to make a purer race:


Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”



“The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”


“I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”


“The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”


"No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.”


“All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class... Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race.”




Quote:
Besides, it's not all that clear if you actually falls in the group of objecting to abortion for medical reasons, given what you said about saving a mother's live.



This shows you do not understand what abortion is. I am opposed to abortion – yes, even to save the life of the mother – because there is no reason to perform an abortion in order to save the life of the mother. You are equating abortion to something other than it is.


Quote:
Quote:
Like I said, especially because there is no necessity for abortion for medical reasons. Why would you ever need to purposely kill a baby in the womb?

When the mother's live is in danger?


WRONG.

Medical leaders representing more than 30,000 doctors said intentionally killing a late-term unborn baby in an abortion is never necessary to save a mother’s life.
https://www.lifenews.com/2019/03/05/30000-doctors-say-abortion-is-never-medicall...




Quote:
Quote:
Sooo if a mother gets sick and the baby in her womb dies, do we call that abortion?

No, however we do call the procedure to remove the dead fetus form her womb an abortion.


Nope. It is called a
Dilation and curettage (D&C)


Quote:
Quote:
If a woman gets in a car accident and the baby in her womb dies, do we say she had an abortion? If a woman looses a baby to miscarriage, do we say she had an abortion?

Not until she undergoes the procedure to remove the dead fetus form her womb. In many cases of miscarriage, that might not be necessary as the fetus might be expelled naturally.



You are mixing up medical terms. Again, the procedure you are referring to is called a D&C. A D&C is not abortion. A D&C is often used to remove the remains from a baby that died in utero. If the baby is already dead, then the procedure would not be referred to as an abortion. I could get a D&C if I have a miscarriage. I might have to get a D&C if I wasn’t even pregnant, but there was something going on in my uterus. I might even have to get a D&C from a botched abortion. Or someone could even perform a D&C with the intent to cause an abortion. In this case, the D&C would be the method of abortion. However, in all the other cases above the D&C would not be the cause of the death of the baby. It is merely the procedure of clearing or cleaning out the uterus.


Quote:
Quote:
If my 95 year old grandfather dies of heart failure, do we say he was murdered?

Depends on the circumstances that lead up to said heart failure, obviously.


Cute. You merely help make my point. There is a difference between natural death and murder. You pretend since the end result is the same – what is the difference. Of course, we all know the difference is huge. And one can get you 30 to life.


Quote:
Quote:
Abortion is the deliberate killing of a baby.

Again, you can have an abortion without deliberately killing the baby.


Uuuh, no, sorry that simply isn’t being intellectually honest. When talking about things like miscarriage/accidents we are talking about something different from abortion and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.


Quote:
Please give a specific example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar Specific enough for ya?

Not sure what you think it proves/means? Did you even read the case? The woman was not given proper medical care and therefore died – very sad. She easily could have been treated/helped, but those who treated her were ignorant of the law. Some mistakenly told her they couldn’t help her because abortion was illegal. However, they would not have needed to perform an abortion to help her. A very tragic situation and one the Pro Aborts like to exploit. Unfortunately it is based on inaccurate information. Those treating this woman acted negligently.




Quote:
Quote:
If a woman needs some surgery or medication in order to save her life, that is NOT an abortion procedure. In fact, no one is purposely or actively or deliberately killing the baby and most likely they are doing everything in their power to prevent the baby from dying. Unfortunately, there are situations where the baby is unable to be saved. Of course there was no direct attempt to take his life.

Right, but it's not clear why the same surgery or medication suddenly changes from an abortion to a non-abortion when they tried to prevent the baby from dying.


Uuummm . . no, it is quite clear.


Quote:
I would go as far as the suggest "I want to kill the baby" have never been used as a justification for abortions.


I beg to differ:

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." -- Margaret Sanger




Quote:
Quote:
Why would you think a fetus is inferior to a human being?

Because it is not a person and not deserving of human rights.


I am afraid then you deny science and are ignorant of the facts. All scientists agree an embryo is a human life. It isn’t even up for debate. What exactly do you think is inside the woman? A dog? An amoeba?

So, it’s a baby if you want it, but not if you don’t? That is anti science and illogical. One person does not get to decide if another person is a human being or not. Uuummm . . . that’s not how it works (History has mistakenly tried that). Don’t you want to be on the right side of history? Allowing abortion is THE human rights issue of our day. An entire class of people are being exterminated because someone else finds them inconvenient. Yikes!

People are actually suggesting it is even now ok to kill a baby once the baby is born. Don’t be surprised when they come for you next. Too weak? Buh by. Unwanted? Buh by. Too ignorant? Buh by. Too costly? Buh by. Too old? Buh by. Wrong color? Buh by. Wrong sex? Buh by. But don’t worry. It is for our own good. We know best. We are making the world a better a place. As long as you have what I want, you can stay. Now just relax . . . this won’t hurt a bit . . .

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 18: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:44 am
Reply
Re: A Refined View on Abortion - The Sympathic Angle

Like this post
[Replying to post 1 by Aetixintro]

Abortion is a very emotive subject. I for one do not go along with carte blanche abortion, but I do feel that there are circumstances when abortion is an option to be considered.
As human beings, we have the ability to bring new life into the world and this ability carries with it a responsibility. There is very little excuse for an unwanted pregnancy when you consider that contraception is so widely and easily available.
Sex is a very pleasurable activity for us all, but after the pleasure, there is the possibility of a pregnancy and that is why people need to remember their responsibility. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.
I have no time for people who on discovering that they going to have a child different from the sex they hoped for, have it aborted. I also have very little time for people who opt for abortion because they find the pregnancy "inconvenient".
I do believe that there is a case for abortion if it will save the mother's life, and despite the argument put forward that some doctors say it is not necessarily so, it would appear that other doctors disagree with that argument. I have to be honest and say that in such circumstances I would put my wife's life first, but it would be her decision as to what to do.
I certainly would not be pointing any fingers at any woman who in such circumstances opted for abortion.
I would also not be pointing any fingers at a rape victim who opted for abortion. As a male, I would not have the gall to tell a woman who had been so terribly violated by one of my own sex that she had to have her rapist's child.
Kudos to her if she did have the child so long as her decision was freely made.
There has been a lot of rather draconian anti-abortion laws passed in some American states lately and what I find troubling about that is that it seems to be men of the religious right who are behind these laws, Just a thought.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 19: Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:16 am
Reply

Like this post
RightReason wrote:

Good thing truth is not based on polls or popular opinion. And I argue the reason there might be many who do not want a blanket ban on abortion is because they do not understand reality/science/fact. They have been indoctrinated with the rhetoric that denies the truth of the situation and has successfully caused a great deal of deception. This is unfortunate, but people can be educated.

You say that like the remining 20% aren't against abortion for purely religious reasons.

Quote:
Improvements in science and technology continue to reveal to us amazing images of the baby in the womb. Kind of hard to deny what we can now see in 3D – unless that is, we don’t look. This is precisely why Planned Parenthood fights ultra sound requirements. They aren’t really about informing the woman. For them, the less the woman knows/sees the better.

Right, because emotional blackmail is wrong.

Quote:
Fortunately, some of us think this is horrible.

Unfortunately for the rest of humanity and women in particular though.

Quote:
We are pro woman. In fact, we fight for both the woman having the baby and the woman in the womb.

There is no woman in the womb. And the woman whose womb you are referring to, don't appreciate you messing with their rights.

But don’t worry her pretty little head about it. It is for her own good. You know best. You are making the world a better a place. Right?

Quote:
Sex selected abortions are common. The truth is more girl babies are aborted than boy babies. I guess radical feminists aren’t too distraught over this.

Right, we aren't, we are merely slightly distraught.

Quote:
Also, more African American babies are aborted than white babies. Where is the outrage?

On your side, presumably. There is no reason to be outraged. Being outrage at the symptom is just a waste energy that could be spent fixing the cause.

Quote:
Planned Parenthood specifically targets poorer areas. They push their mass sterilization agenda on the poor. I guess poor people shouldn’t procreate. This is something their founder, Margaret Sanger actually believed. Disgusting.

Bringing up a baby is expensive, that much is a fact, and a good justification for an on-demand-abortion.

Quote:
So, unless someone wants to argue against science and deny the facts, they may eventually realize abortion is anti woman and racist!

Or they might eventually realize banning abortion is anti woman and racist, but religious convictions are hard to shake.

Quote:
The pro aborts have been quite successful with their dehumanizing attempts and use of rhetoric like “clump of cells”, “a parasite”, “My body. My right”, “Planned Parenthood”, “pro-choice”, etc.

It's easy to be successful when you have the facts on your side.

Quote:
Racists and Nazi’s used similar tactics to present their enemy as not fully human.

And you used similar tactics to present cattle as food stock. *Shock face*

Quote:
Human beings/entire classes of people were referred to as vermin, cockroaches, parasites, 3/5ths human, ignorant, inferior, etc. Compare that to the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger’s own words on pushing abortion and the pill on those she deemed inferior. Like Hitler, she believed she was helping to make a purer race...

And a whole bunch of religious conservatives agreed with her. Showing they never cared about the sanctity of lives, but the control of people they perceived to be inferior. They are morally flexible as long as it keeps the undesirables down.

Quote:
This shows you do not understand what abortion is. I am opposed to abortion – yes, even to save the life of the mother – because there is no reason to perform an abortion in order to save the life of the mother. You are equating abortion to something other than it is.

Then the blood of Savita Halappanavar is on your hands.

Quote:
Medical leaders representing more than 30,000 doctors said intentionally killing a late-term unborn baby in an abortion is never necessary to save a mother’s life.
https://www.lifenews.com/2019/03/05/30000-doctors-say-abortion-is-never-medicall...

Oh? Late-term they say? That sounded very much like they are conceding that intentionally killing a non-late-term unborn baby in an abortion is sometimes necessary to save a mother’s life, doesn't it?

Quote:
Nope. It is called a
Dilation and curettage (D&C)

You are mixing up medical terms. Again, the procedure you are referring to is called a D&C. A D&C is not abortion. A D&C is often used to remove the remains from a baby that died in utero.

And you have the nerve to call me out on semantics.

Quote:
If the baby is already dead, then the procedure would not be referred to as an abortion. I could get a D&C if I have a miscarriage. I might have to get a D&C if I wasn’t even pregnant, but there was something going on in my uterus. I might even have to get a D&C from a botched abortion. Or someone could even perform a D&C with the intent to cause an abortion. In this case, the D&C would be the method of abortion. However, in all the other cases above the D&C would not be the cause of the death of the baby. It is merely the procedure of clearing or cleaning out the uterus.

And when the something being cleared out is a baby, it's an abortion.

Quote:
Cute. You merely help make my point. There is a difference between natural death and murder. You pretend since the end result is the same – what is the difference. Of course, we all know the difference is huge. And one can get you 30 to life.

You are barking up the wrong tree, as I never denied that is a difference, all I said was, both are abortions. If I say cars and buses are both vehicles, would that trigger you to say I am pretending there is no difference between cars and buses?

Quote:
Uuuh, no, sorry that simply isn’t being intellectually honest. When talking about things like miscarriage/accidents we are talking about something different from abortion and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Correction. When talking about things like miscarriage/accidents we are talking about something different from an on-demand-abortion and it is disingenuous to suggest there was any intellectual dishonesty on my part.

Quote:
Not sure what you think it proves/means?

It means there is at least one medically necessarily reason for abortion.

Quote:
She easily could have been treated/helped, but those who treated her were ignorant of the law. Some mistakenly told her they couldn’t help her because abortion was illegal.

That's no mistake. It was illegal, this one case caused a change in the law in 2013, which was then further liberalised in 2018.

Quote:
However, they would not have needed to perform an abortion to help her. A very tragic situation and one the Pro Aborts like to exploit. Unfortunately it is based on inaccurate information. Those treating this woman acted negligently.

Because managing the live threatening consequences when it could have been easily avoided with an abortion, doesn't fit the "medically necessarily" criteria to you? You have some nerve claiming to be pro-woman.

Quote:
Uuummm . . no, it is quite clear.

Okay, I mean not clear other than your moral judgement.

Quote:
I beg to differ:

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." -- Margaret Sanger

Thanks for proving my point: The purpose as stated is being merciful, the killing is merely a means to that end. You might argue that there is a hidden agenda at play here, but the quote supports my case.

Quote:
I am afraid then you deny science and are ignorant of the facts. All scientists agree an embryo is a human life. It isn’t even up for debate. What exactly do you think is inside the woman? A dog? An amoeba?

No, I think it's a human life. Not sure what exactly you think I am denying here. Sounds to me like you are appealing to scientism and not science.

Quote:
So, it’s a baby if you want it, but not if you don’t?

No, it's worth keeping if the woman wants it, but not if she doesn’t. Does that equate to the same thing as "a baby if you want it, but not if you don’t" to you?

Quote:
One person does not get to decide if another person is a human being or not.

Right, but that's moot since a population of people do get to decide if fetuses deserve human rights or not. That’s how it works.

Quote:
Don’t you want to be on the right side of history?

Sure, the question is why don't you? You know full well your anti-abortion stance is going the same way anti-suffragism did, don't you? The anti-abortion movement is very much a countermovement in response to feminism.

Quote:
Allowing abortion is THE human rights issue of our day. An entire class of people are being exterminated because someone else finds them inconvenient.

Start you journey to the right side of history today by abandoning such emotive language. Appeal to emotion is a fallacy and it's not gonna work on logical people like myself.

Quote:
People are actually suggesting it is even now ok to kill a baby once the baby is born. Don’t be surprised when they come for you next. Too weak? Buh by. Unwanted? Buh by. Too ignorant? Buh by. Too costly? Buh by. Too old? Buh by. Wrong color? Buh by. Wrong sex? Buh by. But don’t worry. It is for our own good. We know best. We are making the world a better a place. As long as you have what I want, you can stay. Now just relax . . . this won’t hurt a bit . . .

That sounded coercive. We are liberals so that's not gonna happen if we can help it.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 20: Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:11 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to Bust Nak]



Quote:
You say that like the remining 20% aren't against abortion for purely religious reasons.


Who mentioned religion? I’m talking about science. It’s funny when the pro aborts wait with anticipation for someone to bring up God so they can say, “Ah ha! You only believe that because the Bible tells you so!” Then they can relax and know they can just call the opposition religious zealots and don’t actually have to have a conversation. They hope pro lifers bring up religion so they can be justified in dismissing them. They start to get nervous when Pro lifers are all about facts and science. They begin to squirm, because they know if they actually have to face the facts/truth their position crumbles.


Quote:
Quote:
Improvements in science and technology continue to reveal to us amazing images of the baby in the womb. Kind of hard to deny what we can now see in 3D – unless that is, we don’t look. This is precisely why Planned Parenthood fights ultra sound requirements. They aren’t really about informing the woman. For them, the less the woman knows/sees the better.

Right, because emotional blackmail is wrong.


How is using science and technology emotional blackmail? Gee, I’m sorry that you wish to not see the baby growing inside you, because then it is easier to kill him, but some of us don’t think denying fact/truth is usually a good idea. In fact, one might say that is actually then making a decision based on feelings and emotions verse fact.


Quote:
Bringing up a baby is expensive, that much is a fact, and a good justification for an on-demand-abortion.


If a poor woman already has two children and finds herself pregnant with her 3rd is it justifiable for her to simply kill the 3 year old instead of the baby in the womb? I mean, if money is the issue and a justification for killing a baby, why not get rid of the 3 year old. The new baby could even be nursed for a couple of years and cost less than a 3 year old.


Quote:
Quote:
The pro aborts have been quite successful with their dehumanizing attempts and use of rhetoric like “clump of cells”, “a parasite”, “My body. My right”, “Planned Parenthood”, “pro-choice”, etc.

It's easy to be successful when you have the facts on your side.


What facts? Please share. Is a baby in the womb really a parasite? Wasn’t the same thing said about Jews? Is a baby in the womb really just a clump of cells? Couldn’t the same thing be said about a houseplant? So, that’s not exactly accurate to reduce a baby in the womb to a clump of cells now is it? “My body. My right” isn’t exactly true either is it? Your rights end where another human being’s rights begin. Once a baby is conceived, it isn’t just about YOU is it? Pro-choice? Are you aware that research shows women who have abortions regret their abortions? They actually claim they felt pressured by boyfriends, husbands, mothers, and society. They report that they wanted to keep their baby, but WAIT FOR IT . . . but they felt they had NO choice. So, those are some of the facts. Are those the facts you wanted to discuss?


Quote:
Quote:
If the baby is already dead, then the procedure would not be referred to as an abortion. I could get a D&C if I have a miscarriage. I might have to get a D&C if I wasn’t even pregnant, but there was something going on in my uterus. I might even have to get a D&C from a botched abortion. Or someone could even perform a D&C with the intent to cause an abortion. In this case, the D&C would be the method of abortion. However, in all the other cases above the D&C would not be the cause of the death of the baby. It is merely the procedure of clearing or cleaning out the uterus.

And when the something being cleared out is a baby, it's an abortion.


No, sorry that simply is ridiculous. That’s like saying when the crime team comes and clears away the body, they are committing murder.


Quote:
Quote:
Not sure what you think it proves/means?

It means there is at least one medically necessarily reason for abortion.


Where the heck do you get that? That is not what that case meant at all.


Quote:
Quote:
She easily could have been treated/helped, but those who treated her were ignorant of the law. Some mistakenly told her they couldn’t help her because abortion was illegal.

That's no mistake. It was illegal, this one case caused a change in the law in 2013


It was never illegal to treat and care for the pregnant woman. Again, abortion was NOT necessary to save her life. Would saving her life had resulted in her baby dying—probably, but that wouldn’t have been an abortion as previously explained. The health care providers made ignorant decisions based on a faulty understanding of the law. That’s too bad, Of course, that has nothing to do with the law or the wrongness of abortion.


[quote]Quote:
I beg to differ:

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." -- Margaret Sanger

Thanks for proving my point: The purpose as stated is being merciful, the killing is merely a means to that end. You might argue that there is a hidden agenda at play here, but the quote supports my case. [/quoate]

Well, then do you object to killing the elderly when they become too much of a financial burden? How about killing the disabled? That is the merciful thing to do, right?


Quote:
Quote:
So, it’s a baby if you want it, but not if you don’t?

No, it's worth keeping if the woman wants it, but not if she doesn’t. Does that equate to the same thing as "a baby if you want it, but not if you don’t" to you?


Wow! Well, at least you’re honest. Hope there are people who continue to find you worth keeping. And here I always thought our right to life is just that. I didn’t realize a human beings right to life is dependent on whether another human being wants to allow me to live or not.


Quote:
Quote:
One person does not get to decide if another person is a human being or not.

Right, but that's moot since a population of people do get to decide if fetuses deserve human rights or not.


Why wouldn’t they? Again, science shows they are human. We are right back to when the population thought they had the right to decide if African Americans deserve rights or not. If Jewish people deserve rights or not. If people with Downs Syndrome deserve rights or not.

Quote:
That’s how it works.


Is it? So human beings doing not simply have intrinsic rights for being human beings? So, African Americans only have rights because we as a population have decided they should? Got it. So, hope they play their cards right, or we might just change our minds.


Quote:
Allowing abortion is THE human rights issue of our day. An entire class of people are being exterminated because someone else finds them inconvenient.

Start you journey to the right side of history today by abandoning such emotive language. Appeal to emotion is a fallacy and it's not gonna work on logical people like myself.


Ha, ha, ha . . . the logic is on my side. Your position wants to deny the facts/the science/the logic and appeal solely to emotions.

Deliberately killing a baby in the womb is immoral. How could it not be? If it is immoral to kill a baby once it is outside of the womb, how can you argue it is ok to kill the same baby when it is inside the womb? Just because you can’t see the baby yet? That is illogical!

This is pretty good: https://www.prageru.com/video/the-most-important-question-about-abortion/

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version